Although I'm not sure this case really shows it, it does seem plausible that a company-by-company (or at least algorithm-by-algorithm) case can be made for harm based on intentional "design choices". You seem to conflate every algorithmic decision with window dressing akin to the size of windows or endless scrolls, etc. That might be correct for the decisions made by front-end developers (humans), but I think less so for decisions made by algorithms (sorry for the anthropomorphizing, but that's where we are with these things, lately).
But what if the argument from these plaintiffs was not "I was a depressed teen and saw things that made it worse" and rather "the algorithm learned that I was depressed and was specifically designed to show me things calculated to make that worse". I know that's not being alleged here (and would be really hard to allege since algorithm details are usually sacred somehow), but it's entirely plausible to be true.
Your example of the "paint drying" videos is good, but is of course modeled to leave out the fault of the curator. Does this depiction change if we view this as a museum, for example, that has decided to curate a room of violent BDSM gay porn? Legal, surely, at least amongst consenting adults. Also something many adults wouldn't want shown to their kids. Now suppose that room was in an enclosed space in the museum but there was a series of primary-color signs, with smiling cartoon animals and balloons, inviting children to come visit this space and to see the new special Kids Exhibit! and maybe some imagery to make it extra appealing to Christian parents.
The content itself is still the content. Legal, appropriate in the right setting, etc. But the "platform" decisions about to whom to serve it could certainly be misleading? inappropriate? illegal? dangerous? Not sure which adjective is right, but I think it IS possible for platforms to make intentionally-bad choices regarding curation. And I think algorithmic decisions that build an FYP are a bit more like "curation" than "moderation".
Why play the "real name" game with her? She's obviously a well-organized and eloquent speaker, and would otherwise appear a "normal person". We don't bother removing stage names from "regular" Hollywood people ("Carey Grant [real name: Archibald Leach] was an American actor..."). We let those folks live under their stage names, why not her? Is it important to isolate her as a sex worker for some reason?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by ruraldoc.
False advertising?
Although I'm not sure this case really shows it, it does seem plausible that a company-by-company (or at least algorithm-by-algorithm) case can be made for harm based on intentional "design choices". You seem to conflate every algorithmic decision with window dressing akin to the size of windows or endless scrolls, etc. That might be correct for the decisions made by front-end developers (humans), but I think less so for decisions made by algorithms (sorry for the anthropomorphizing, but that's where we are with these things, lately). But what if the argument from these plaintiffs was not "I was a depressed teen and saw things that made it worse" and rather "the algorithm learned that I was depressed and was specifically designed to show me things calculated to make that worse". I know that's not being alleged here (and would be really hard to allege since algorithm details are usually sacred somehow), but it's entirely plausible to be true. Your example of the "paint drying" videos is good, but is of course modeled to leave out the fault of the curator. Does this depiction change if we view this as a museum, for example, that has decided to curate a room of violent BDSM gay porn? Legal, surely, at least amongst consenting adults. Also something many adults wouldn't want shown to their kids. Now suppose that room was in an enclosed space in the museum but there was a series of primary-color signs, with smiling cartoon animals and balloons, inviting children to come visit this space and to see the new special Kids Exhibit! and maybe some imagery to make it extra appealing to Christian parents. The content itself is still the content. Legal, appropriate in the right setting, etc. But the "platform" decisions about to whom to serve it could certainly be misleading? inappropriate? illegal? dangerous? Not sure which adjective is right, but I think it IS possible for platforms to make intentionally-bad choices regarding curation. And I think algorithmic decisions that build an FYP are a bit more like "curation" than "moderation".
Why the "real name" tag?
Why play the "real name" game with her? She's obviously a well-organized and eloquent speaker, and would otherwise appear a "normal person". We don't bother removing stage names from "regular" Hollywood people ("Carey Grant [real name: Archibald Leach] was an American actor..."). We let those folks live under their stage names, why not her? Is it important to isolate her as a sex worker for some reason?